Henry v. Central Freight Lines, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 13, 2019
• Docket: 2:16-cv-00280
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Ricky Henry, No. 2:16-cv-00280-JAM-EFB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY ACTION 13 Central Freight Lines, Inc., 14 Defendant. 15 16 Ricky Henry (“Henry” or “Plaintiff”) worked for Central 17 Freight Lines, Inc. (“CFL” or “Defendant”) as a truck driver from 18 April 2014 to February 2015. Henry alleges CFL intentionally and 19 illegally misclassified him, and other putative class member- 20 truck drivers, as independent contractors to deny them statutory 21 benefits owed under the California Labor Code. CFL contends that 22 Henry, and the putative class members, were properly classified 23 as independent contractors and therefore not entitled to certain 24 protections and benefits under the California Labor Code. 25 Since this Court’s decision on CFL’s Motion for Summary 26 Judgment and Henry’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Order, 27 ECF No. 87, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its prior ruling in 28 Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc., 923 F.3d 575 (9th 1 Cir. 2019), and certified to the California Supreme Court the 2 question of whether the “ABC Test” announced in Dynamex Ops. W. 3 Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.5th 903 (2018) applies 4 retroactively. See Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc., 5 930 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2019); and Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising 6 Int’l, Inc., 939 F.3d 1045, 1049 (9th Cir. 2019). The California 7 Supreme Court has since decided to rule on the question. See ECF 8 No. 94-1. CFL moves to stay the action pending resolution of 9 this issue. CFL Mot., ECF. No. 91. 10 For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS 11 Defendant’s Motion to Stay the Action.1 12 13 I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 14 The parties are intimately familiar with the events leading 15 up to this motion, as they were described in depth in this 16 Court’s previously issued Order. See Order, ECF No. 87. As 17 such, they will not be repeated here. 18 19 II. OPINION 20 A. Request for Judicial Notice 21 A court may take judicial notice of a fact “that is not 22 subject to reasonable dispute because it is generally known 23 within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction” or “can be 24 accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy 25 cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). A 26

27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 28 scheduled for November 5, 2019. 1 court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another 2 court “not for the truth of the matters asserted in the other 3 litigation, but rather to establish the fact of such litigation 4 and related findings.” Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d. 5 767, 774 (2nd Cir. 1991). Likewise, a court may take judicial 6 notice of “adjudicative facts not subject to reasonable 7 dispute.” United States v. Chapel, 41 F.3d 1338, 1342 (9th Cir. 8 1994) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 9 Defendant requests judicial notice of the following: 10 1. ECF No. 1 in California Truck Association v. Becerra, 11 No, 3:18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2018). 12 2. ECF No. 45 in California Truck Association v. Becerra, 13 No, 3:18-cv-02458-BEN-BLM (S.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2018). 14 3. Judge Staton’s Order staying the action in Bruers v. 15 Flowers Foods, Inc., No. 18-cv-01442-JLS-ADS (C.D. Cal 16 Aug. 7, 2019). 17 Def.’s RJN at 1, ECF No. 94-1. 18 Plaintiff requests judicial notice of the following: 19 1. The full text of Assembly Bill No. 5, signed by 20 Governor Newson on September 18, 2019. 21 Plf.’s RJN at 1, ECF No. 95-1. 22 The Court agrees that the adjudicative facts Defendant and 23 Plaintiff identify are proper subjects of judicial notice. Both 24 Defendant’s and Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice are, 25 therefore, GRANTED. 26 B. Legal Standard 27 “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power 28 inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes 1 on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for 2 counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 3 248, 254 (1936). Accordingly, “a] trial court may . . . enter a 4 stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent 5 proceedings which bear upon the case.” Leyva v. Certified 6 Grocers of California, Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863 (9th Cir. 1979). 7 The decision whether to stay an action is committed to the 8 “sound discretion” of the district court and is based on 9 weighing “the competing interests which will be affected by the 10 granting or refusal to grant a stay . . . .” CMAX, Inc. v. 11 Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). 12 Among these competing interests are: (1) the possible 13 damage which may result from the granting of a stay, (2) the 14 hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required 15 to go forward, and (3) the orderly course of justice measured in 16 terms of the simplifying or complicating issues, proof, and 17 questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay. 18 Id. Finally, “the proponent of a stay bears the burden of 19 establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 20 (1997). 21 C. Analysis 22 1. Retroactivity of the ABC Test 23 Ensuring that justice proceeds in an ordered manner is the 24 interest that controls here. The Ninth Circuit recently 25 certified the question of whether Dynamex applies retroactively. 26 The California Supreme Court agreed to answer that question as a 27 matter of state law. That ruling will significantly impact the 28 size of any of the putative classes and impact the criteria this 1 Court must consider when deciding class certification. Waiting 2 for the California Supreme Court’s decision will allow this Court 3 to adjudicate the issues before it with far greater certainty. 4 For this reason, a stay is appropriate. 5 In opposition to Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff argues the 6 California Legislature has definitively mandated that the ABC 7 Test is retroactive with the passage of Assembly Bill 5 (“AB-5”). 8 Henry Opp’n, ECF No. 95. The chronology of events cuts against 9 this argument. The Ninth Circuit certified the question to the 10 California Supreme Court after Governor Newson signed AB-5 into 11 law. See Vazquez, 939 F.3d at 1049; and ECF No. 95-1. And both 12 the Ninth Circuit and other district courts have stayed 13 proceedings pending resolution of this issue. See Raef Lawson v. 14 Grubhub, Inc., No. 18-15386, D.C. No. 3:15-cv-05128-JSC (N.D. 15 Cal. 2019); and Bruers v. Flowers Foods, Inc., D.C. No. 18-cv- 16 01442-JLS (C.D. Cal. 2019). 17 Proceeding with class certification under the assumption the 18 California Supreme Court will apply Dynamex retroactively could 19 very well lead to inefficiencies and a waste of resources for 20 both the parties and the Court. Plaintiff argues a stay would be 21 prejudicial given the costs he has already expended preparing for 22 class certification. Henry Opp’n, ECF No. 95 at 9. But if this 23 Court proceeds with class certification and Dynamex is found not 24 to be retroactive, the parties will have to relitigate the issue— 25 an even more costly venture. Like the Ninth Circuit and district 26 courts before us, this Court declines to take that path. 27 In sum, with multiple motions pending before this Court, see 28 ECF No. 88; and ECF No. 96, a stay awaiting clarity on Dynamex’s 1 retroactivity would allow for a more orderly disposition of these 2 motions. Thus, Defendant’s Motion to Stay the Action to await 3 resolution from the California Supreme Court is GRANTED. 4 2. Preemption of the ABC Test by the FAAAA 5 Defendant also argues this Court should stay this case given 6 an intra-circuit split about whether the Federal Aviation 7 Administration Authorization Act (“FAAAA”) preempts the ABC Test. 8 See CFL Mot., ECF. No. 91 at 2-3. This Court has already ruled 9 on this issue. See Order, ECF No. 87 at 15-17. Absent new 10 evidence or an intervening change of controlling law, Defendant’s 11 argument is insufficient to disrupt this Court’s previous 12 finding. Thus, a stay is not warranted on these grounds. 13 14 IIl. ORDER 15 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS 16 Defendant’s Motion to Stay the Action until the California 17 Supreme Court answers the Ninth Circuit’s certified question. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: November 12, 2019 20 kA 2 teiren staves odermacr 7008 22 23 24 25 26 27 28